similar to: Maximum Folder Size/Number of Messages

Full_Name: Vilmos Prokaj Version: R-2..7.1 OS: Win XP Submission from: (NULL) (157.181.227.218) The 'aggregate' function on an empty data.frame generate an error, however it should return according to the documentation an empty data.frame. e.g. z<-data.frame(a=integer(0),b=numeric(0)) aggregate(z,by=z[1],FUN=sum) In a more realistic situation 'z' is of the form

Hi, I am considering to use Speex in a particular environment and I want to ask if you thought it realistic. I am going to use Wireless SIP (G.711) handsets in an environment that is typcially noisey (background), connecting to an Asterisk PBX. I am considering converting the G.711 to Speex so I can "massage" out the background noise. Is this realistic? Any input would be great.

Hi, What is the output of 'gluster volume info' for this volume? Regards, Nithya On 23 April 2018 at 18:52, Frank Ruehlemann <ruehlemann at itsc.uni-luebeck.de> wrote: > Hi, > > after 2 years running GlusterFS without bigger problems we're facing > some strange errors lately. > > After updating to 3.12.7 some user reported at least 4 broken > directories

Hi, after 2 years running GlusterFS without bigger problems we're facing some strange errors lately. After updating to 3.12.7 some user reported at least 4 broken directories with some invisible files. The files are at the bricks and don't start with a dot, but aren't visible in "ls". Clients still can interact with them by using the explicit path. More information:

Hi, Ady wrote: > the UEFI specs do state that the ESP is supposed > to be set/used as no-emulation mode > ... > the UEFI specs should tolerate / accept this situation, rather than < restricting the ESP to no-emulation mode. My criticism towards this UEFI implementation is that it probably cannot serve as realistic test bed for the first stage of UEFI booting. It seems far too

Hi, On 23 April 2018 at 18:52, Frank Ruehlemann <ruehlemann at itsc.uni-luebeck.de> wrote: > Hi, > > after 2 years running GlusterFS without bigger problems we're facing > some strange errors lately. > > After updating to 3.12.7 some user reported at least 4 broken > directories with some invisible files. The files are at the bricks and > don't start with a

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Jan 19, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Adve, Vikram Sadanand via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Johannes, > > > >> I am especially curious where you get your data from. Tapir [0] (and to > >> some degree PIR [1]) have

> On Jan 1, 2017, at 5:12 PM, Laurent Gautier <lgautier at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2017-01-01 8:28 GMT-05:00 Prof Brian Ripley <ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk>: > On 29/12/2016 15:55, Simon Urbanek wrote: > The problem is elsewhere - Rinterface.h guards the ultima-ratio fallback with HAVE_UINTPTR_T but that config flag is not exported in Rconfig.h. Should be now

Hi All, I have been Googling my head off but cannot find a method to stream edit all the images in a directory and to resize them. I have a large number of images of up to 3GB in size that I want to put in albums on a website, but before I do this I need to resize them to a more realistic configuration. I know how to do this manually with the GIMP but it becomes tedious for more than a few

Happy holidays all! I know it's very subjective to determine whether some data is outlier or not... But are there reasonally good and realistic methods of identifying outliers in R? Thanks a lot! [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Le mer. 28 nov. 2018 à 11:41, David Greene <dag at cray.com> a écrit : > > Quentin Colombet <quentin.colombet at gmail.com> writes: > > > And are there any realistic alternatives for declarative > > representations combines? > > > > Realistic I would have thought we can use the syntax we already have > > for SDISel. > > In other

I had a recent request to improve security on my web servers by having each website use a different user to run the hosting service. So example1.comhas it's own Apache instance running as apache1 and then example2.com has its own instance of Apache as apache2. Is this even possible or realistic? I understand the idea of how that would be secure, much like creating a virtual machine to

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2017, at 12:04 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> > On Jan 19, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Adve, Vikram Sadanand via llvm-dev

Given the number of people that are starting to be involved in Syslinux development, I wanted to start a discussion about a common coding style, for C code in particular. Currently, a lot of the code in Syslinux is written in different styles, partly because my own style has changed over the years. There are pretty much two alternatives that I think are realistic: a) Linux kernel coding style:

Hi all, Im a little bit confused concerning the effect() command, effects package. I have done several glm models with family=quasipoisson: model <-glm(Y~X+Q+Z,family=quasipoisson) and then used results.effects <-effect("X",model,se=TRUE) to get the "adjusted means". I am aware about the debate concerning adjusted means, but you guys just have to trust me - it

Many people prefer to use LMTP for delivery from postfix for better efficiency but X-Original-to header support still missing after many years. One affect of this is need to set sieve_vacation_dont_check_recipient = yes which violate Sieve standard and cause auto-replyies sent to messages that should not happen. Or abandon LMTP. or abandon postfix?? So while feature request is stalled are

I've been looking at the Sambawiki for notes on upgrading (https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Upgrading_a_Samba_AD_DC) The way I read it it is suggested to uninstall samba completely and then essentially re-installing. That seems like a Murphy's Law disaster (with my luck) waiting to happen. Is "upgrading "in-place" a realistic option?

On May 9, 2019, at 9:38 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > > As an initial goal, we would love to have a release in a month .. That?s about the average time for 7.x releases, which I assume are far less work to get out than a point-zero. Is this goal realistic? I?d consider any ship date before about September to be ?success.?

* Ruben Safir: > On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 03:58:53AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > >> Let's hope that people who do not know how to use a tool - e.g. >> like a hammer - doesn't use that tool in the first place .... > > that is pretty unrealistic and I don't agree with it anyway. The tool metaphor is realistic. In my experience (which dates back to the

are working now, using our own implementation of a COM-RPC-Server. If you want to test a Server/Client-Pair - here's our free Download: www.datenhaus.de/Downloads/dh_RPC.zip For a successful test under wine, you have to Install the Redistributables of an actual VB6-Runtime and some ADO-Distributable >=2.5 first. I've tested the whole thing under a Debian-Sid with a somewhat older